God doesnt exist because BOP lies on Christian and theres absence of evidencefor God. Absense of evidence means evidence of absense because if God exist does invisible pink unicorn too. Christian say that God exist because alot people belief it, butt its argumentem ad populem or something like that.

Evolution is true because BOP lie on christian to disprove evolution as evolution is Status Quo and lack of adequately evidence for evolution or absense of evidence does not mean evidence of absense, but only for evolution and not for God. Its not a double standerd because scientits belif in evolution and I trust them because their wear white lab coats. If evolution its false then does gravity is false too.

Evolution is true because BOP lie on christian to disprove evolution as evolution is Status Quo and lack of adequately evidence for evolution or absense of evidence does not mean evidence of absense, but only for evolution and not for God. Its not a double standerd because scientits belif in evolution and I trust them because their wear white lab coats. If evolution its false then does gravity is false too.

Don't feed the trolls.

This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten

Evolution is true because BOP lie on christian to disprove evolution as evolution is Status Quo and lack of adequately evidence for evolution or absense of evidence does not mean evidence of absense, but only for evolution and not for God. Its not a double standerd because scientits belif in evolution and I trust them because their wear white lab coats. If evolution its false then does gravity is false too.

Don't feed the trolls.

I always thout that you wear skeptic alone but it wuz skeptical one lolz

Evolution is true because BOP lie on christian to disprove evolution as evolution is Status Quo and lack of adequately evidence for evolution or absense of evidence does not mean evidence of absense, but only for evolution and not for God. Its not a double standerd because scientits belif in evolution and I trust them because their wear white lab coats. If evolution its false then does gravity is false too.

Evolution is true because BOP lie on christian to disprove evolution as evolution is Status Quo and lack of adequately evidence for evolution or absense of evidence does not mean evidence of absense, but only for evolution and not for God. Its not a double standerd because scientits belif in evolution and I trust them because their wear white lab coats. If evolution its false then does gravity is false too.

To say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence is quite the dangerous premise to work off of. Suddenly you find yourself unable to believe in what science has left open for new discovery. You halt yourself at whatever number of scientific progressions have occurred, and remain closed to the notion of any new ones. The reason for this is that before evidence is discovered, the evidence is absent. This leads to the conclusion that all undiscovered things simply do not exist, as we have no evidence of them at this time.Secondly, to say that1. If God exists, a purple unicorn exists2. God exists3. Therefore, A purple unicorn exists

At the end, you stipulate that1. If Evolution is false, gravity is false2. If Gravity is true, Evolution is true2. Evolution is false3. Therefore, gravity is false.The are unstable unstable indeed, as you say that a purple unicorn's existence is dependent on God's existence, as if the evidence of God's existence alone is that somewhere out there, there exists a purple unicorn. Nowhere under Theological beliefs are the two incorporated, nor in secular science. On gravity, no scientist has ever stipulated that, because of the premise of Gravity, Evolution. To base one on the other is simply preposterous.

Continuing on, I'll point out the difference between a neutral and positive belief. A positive belief is saying that something IS (i.e. God IS the cause of the universe, inside your house IS a lion, inside your house IS a lack of a lion, etc). Positive beliefs must be proven, and so the burden of proof lies on the person who stated the positive belief. A neutral belief is saying that something IS NOT (i.e. God IS NOT the cause of the universe). So, looking at Creationism vs Evolutionism, we see not a positive and neutral belief, but indeed, two positives. The burden of proof is on Theism to prove God's existence, as it is on the Evolutionist to prove Evolution's existence. It is not the burden of proof for either side to disprove the other, as disbelief in something is a neutral belief.

Lastly, I would advise whomever you received that argument from to read this as well, in the spirit of not continuing on with this fallacious argument.